Digilux-2 out of the market?

ywenz said:
Why get this big digicam when you can get a DSLR+good lens for similar price. You'll get better performance out of the DSLR.
Click to expand...
HAHA. Always provoking 😛 I'm sure you know the answer to that one. Nearly all Digilux owners are DSLR owners as well. Most of us find the results out of the Digilux2 a lot better, leaving the Canikon or whatever to gather dust on a shelf, only getting an outing to show off its 600 mm or macro-lens. Saves on medical costs for RSI in the shoulder used to carry the camera bag as well.
 
jaapv said:
Nearly all Digilux owners are DSLR owners as well. Most of us find the results out of the Digilux2 a lot better, leaving the Canikon or whatever to gather dust on a shelf, only getting an outing to show off its 600 mm or macro-lens.
Click to expand...

I personally don't think they can show-off the Macro lenses either 🙂
 
BTW: LC1's have been going for 750-900 on the auction site lately. I was considering selling before PMA but just can't bring myself to do it. Like MikeL I got my first film rangefinder after the LC1. Some use CV finders w/ it as a EVF work around. A Raw file interpolated with the most recent converter in PS can give you a very nice 16 x 20 print too!.
 
Agreed that the LC1/Digilux produced excellent images for a digital camera. I never bought it because I couldn't stand the EVF either.
I will never use a camera that does not have a true optical viewer for serious work. Most pros feel the same so I will guess that as long as pros are around, DSLRs will be around. Right now DSLRs are the fastest growing segment of the digital camera market, so we are only going to see more and more of them in the next few years.
I will never stop using film so I don't really care what happens out there, but it is interesting to watch!
 
gustav[] pEña said:
I really like to use de LCD panel, is fun and confortable but im also planing to use external viewfinders with the Double Accessory Shoe. So there is a solution.
Click to expand...

I can't wait until OLED displays become prevelant in consumer electronics. This technology would be a huge improvement over LCD

There is a reason why even a low-res(NTSC) professional ENG video camera would use a $1500 CRT viewfinder rather than a LCD EVF for ability to focus accurately.

To put it in perspective, even my Panasonic DVX100 has a 200K LCD, to allow mediocure focusability. You would think they should interpolate that pixel count up 14X in a 5.0 megapixel digi-cam.. ( 2,560 x 1,920 ) / ( 720 x 480 ) = 14.
 
Last edited:
akptc said:
Are people confusing the LX1 and LC1?
Click to expand...


I hope not. I have both and I love them. The LX1 is extremely fast for street shooting. I could see no need to purchase the Leica versions, when the Panasonics are even nicer. The LC1 is beautiful in black and mine is starting to brass just ever so lightly. The LX1 really needs that little finger grip that the DLux does not have.
 
LX1 vs LC1

LX1 vs LC1

I've been thinking of getting either the LC1 or LX1 and am a bit confused. These two seem to be very different cameras (pics below) yet folks tend to talk about them interchangeably. What am I missing?

The reason I have not yet purchased the LX1 is because it does not have a viewfinder and wonder if I could get used to that.
 
EVF's suck so far

EVF's suck so far

The fact if the matter is optical viewfinders(SLR or RF) work better and are more esthetically pleasing. But as soon as EVFs achieve comparable levels of resolution and dynamic range, they will take over.
The complexity of both the SLR and rangfinder have to do with coupling a parrallel optical system with the sensor. Before digital, there was no choice. But now we can take the signal from the sensor and deliver it straight to the user without any intervening mirrors, baselines and other things that get out of alignment, cost money, and take up space. The only problem is the current versions suck. But not forever.
Imagine a 1Meg EVF full frame camera about the size of an M3. Thats where were headed.
Rex
 
akptc said:
I've been thinking of getting either the LC1 or LX1 and am a bit confused. These two seem to be very different cameras (pics below) yet folks tend to talk about them interchangeably. What am I missing?

The reason I have not yet purchased the LX1 is because it does not have a viewfinder and wonder if I could get used to that.
Click to expand...


In a nutshell, the LC1 is 5 megapixels and the viewfindewr is an EVF. It also has a 28-90 manual zoom. Controls are very much like a film camera. One can also use the LCD panel as well, but not both together. The LX1 is 8 megapixels and has a 28 - 105 zoom (not manual) and has three different shooting aspect ratios - 16:9, 3:2, and 4:3. The megapixel count gets smaller as the ratio gets less - 8, 6, and 5 respectively. The 28mm view can only be used with the 16:9 ratio. To compose one has to use the LCD panel. There is no viewfinder. The LX1 is very small and pocketable. Both shoot RAW.
 
Last edited:
Digilux/LC1 done right

Digilux/LC1 done right

Another nice thing about a M mount, 1Meg EVF, "rangefinder" is we won't have to hold our cameras at arms length looking at that LCD thingy on the back of the camera.

Rex
 
rvaubel said:
Before digital, there was no choice. But now we can take the signal from the sensor and deliver it straight to the user without any intervening mirrors, baselines and other things that get out of alignment, cost money, and take up space. The only problem is the current versions suck. But not forever.
Imagine a 1Meg EVF full frame camera about the size of an M3. Thats where were headed.
Rex
Click to expand...

You're forgetting what makes a rangefinder a rangefinder. Many RF users perfer the RF workflow precisely for the fact that you determine focus by aligning two off-axis images together. If you focus directly from the sensor output, then you're basically operating the camera in SLR fashion... hardcore RFers don't like that.

The advancement you proposed would make formerly SLR camera packages smaller, but is not an improvement on the RF workflow.. in fact, this M-mounted camera is no longer a rangefinder, it is in fact simply a P&S cam.
 
Last edited:
There's been a thread going on on the Leica digital forum for quite a while addressing the D2, two years out. Some interesting comments. I've had my D2 for about two years and have had excellent results from it. The EVF certainly isn't a true RF and is much more like a DSLR. But to be honest I like to see what I'm getting as I seldom if ever crop before I print. The EVF has worked well for me, much better than I thought it would. The digital M will need to come down in price from what we're hearing it will go for before I can afford it. But the thought of one set of lenses for both film bodies and digital certainly is very appealing.
 
The discussion about the RF or DSLR like qualities is not a very interesting one, as an EVF is neither. Having said that, Leica did design the whole camera, including the EVF, to feel as much like a RF as possible within the concept. The EVF did take some getting used to for me, but it behaves more like a RF than a SLR imo.And the results are the most "film-like" of all digital camera's. At any rate, the camera does whet the appetite for the digital M, which, I presume, was precisely what Leica intended. I'm sure this goes for most Digilux2 owners.
 
Last edited:
jaapv said:
Not that crazy. If you would have to pay USD 1500 for a lens of that quality you would find it reasonable. So the camerabody is for free! 😉
Click to expand...

It would be reasonable if it had an image circle that covers the full 35mm area, a lens that covers only a 2/3 sensor is much cheaper to develop and produce.
Also if I have a $1500 lens I can buy a new body and still use it, try using the Digilux-2 lens on anything else 😛
 
jaapv said:
Having said that, Leica did design the whole camera, including the EVF, to feel as much like a RF as possible within the concept. The EVF did take some getting used to for me, but it behaves more like a RF than a SLR imo.
Click to expand...

By appearance, it might look like a RF camera to the unsuspecting eye. However the EVF is showing a straight output from the sensor, just like all the other tiny P&S cameras out there. There is nothing special about how the digilux2's EVF behaves. The way you focus with the camera, it is more like an SLR than RF
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

kxl
Any love for the Leica M-A (Typ 127)?
2 3 4
Replies
73
Views
3K
Archiver
A
オレンジ
The value and appeal of the Alpa 9d
Replies
1
Views
631
Godfrey
Godfrey
B
Canon P service question
Replies
3
Views
189
brianentz
B
T
A (possibly) unusual question about out-of-date film...
Replies
8
Views
639
Freakscene
Freakscene
p.giannakis
The concept of micro-contrast
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
peterm1
peterm1
Back
Top Bottom